Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:00, 9 May 2006

Basij again

ArmanJan deleted well sourced info on human rights issues at Basij twice , and vandalized the talk page. You told him to stop on Talk:Basij and on his talk page, which he deleted, as he did with other complaints.

Now he removed a photo claiming it to be a "well known" forgery, giving no evidence or source - the photo's authenticity has been falsely denied before , . As the article is on attack by others too (e.g Databot) I checked ArmanJan contrib's: He put wrong PD related tags to several imgs , , . He vandalized Talk:Military_of_Iran (a reasonable post by an anon) and Talk:Islamic_Revolutionary_Guards_Corps. As far as I can tell, his img uploads mostly have misleading licensing infos. Some others noted this on his talk page too. All in all he should get a stern warning. It's tedious to watch after that article. --tickle me 06:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Above again, More Egg

Oops: I apparently didn't save the edit to the Category page... Here's the current note just posted:

I apparently never saved out on the edit I was recommending. It should have looked like This example or when polished for presentation and organization, the current: Category:History of Canada . Apparently too many open browser windows, or the like. Apologies (again) FrankB 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

east sea

hi, would you mind taking a look at East Sea? thanks. Appleby 01:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 18:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Bgully

well, Adam88 (talk · contribs) is the only sock I can think of right now; of course he'll create others. I didn't want to block him myself, since 'legally' he more or less sat out his year's ban, and would be an editor in good standing if he actually did edit articles; as it is, he's reduced to bitching about me and my "clique" in irregular intervals, so yes, I think you can block him on grounds of that; he is not as great a nuisance as other trolls I could mention, but there seems to be no reason why he should stick around just to add to the noise ratio around here. regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

lying to protect wikipedia

You realise that I don't see anything wrong with doing this? In some ways I would be rather dissapointed if people didn't at least lie by omission (much better to say we have a load of effective anti vandalism measures in place rather than outlineing the ways around these). In fact that is pretty much the intention behind WP:BEANS. The probablem is aside from any issues of people steping outside their powers or whatever we have an inconsistancy. WP:OFFICE powers are not needed to block vandles. Admins have delibertately blocked the whole of AOL before now so it isn't needed for range blocks etheir. That is why I was considering the posibilty that the vandalism was to a degree at least a cover story.Geni 19:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey at it again

Removing sockpuppet banners from proven sockpuppet accounts. ]

And he's removing comments informing him he shouldn't be removing sockpuppet tags from his own page, claiming harrasing dialogue. And yes, I left the comment, but other than that, haven't touched his pages --Jerry (Talk) 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Danny and Eloquence

You say that I adopted a dictatorial tone towards Danny, which is quite true. To my mind that reflects the seriousness of what is going on here. Erik followed Misplaced Pages policy. For doing that he got banned and desysoped. There are few more serious things that can be done within a community like this. The creation of the Dannyisme account is a positive step towards making sure this does not happen again, but it is not enough so far as I am concerned. I see no reason why Danny's ordinary account should have access to any powers of those above a normal user after this incident. If anyone else had done something like this they would have been permanently banned but we do need Danny in his Foundation capacity.

I see from previous parts of Danny's talk page that similar concerns have been raised in the past so this is not exactly unprecedented in subject area. What is unprecedented is the incredible abuse of power that has taken place. David Newton 20:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Danny

Nor is this the treatment we, and particularly Eloquence, deserve. Danny is more than welcome to quit if he can't handle the stress of people wondering why he is randomly protecting pages on gimped versions without citing the Office Action policy. Or maybe he could simply say it's an Office Action, and remove all doubt and concern. --Golbez 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking

I did not know that there was a rule against informing other users on their talk pages of a deletion nomination, and expected opposing voters to do the same. I viewed it as basically the same as when a politician airs commercials on TV about an upcoming election and asks viewers to vote for him, and while I only nominated users who had previously voted with me, I did not neglect to mention the nomination on the article's talk page and on the "articles nominated for deletion" page. If there is a rule against this, I apologise for breaking it and will avoid doing so in the future. Please also note, however, that I was not the only one to do so. - Conrad Devonshire 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 03:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Article ban

Thanks for taking action. But I'd expect sysops to be taking appropriate action for each of the cases, that would actually steer all parties towards reaching an eventual resolution. Imposing a ban wouldn't be helpful, I'm afraid.

For the list of bridges, my edits were to restore the article as according to what it was like prior to undiscussed, POV and controversial edits by user:Alanmak and user:SchmuckyTheCat. For the Hong Kong national football team and District Council of Hong Kong articles, it's related to how the official full name of Hong Kong should be linked. I've requested user:Alanmak to discuss, but all efforts were in vain. Guangzhou, Community of Portuguese Language Countries and East Asian Tigers, are related to user:Alanmak imposition of the the infobox-style he prefers, to replace the inline-style suggested by Misplaced Pages's official manual of style. The Macao, China article is related to whether there's any official policy to avoid redirects. I've requested user:SchmuckyTheCat, who argues Macao should be spelt with a -u, at his talk page for official policy/ies, but he's not responding. For the i'm lovin' it article, I'm following McDonald's official website, but user:Alanmak keeps arguing that's merely my POV. I'd love to hear from you why I have to be banned for each of the above cases. If possible, please help bring all parties to real discussion, or else the trouble is not like getting to be solved. Thanks again, and thanks in advance for your necessary interventional actions, Tony. — Instantnood 14:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that a lot of your edits have been reverting Alanmak's edits. If you think he's being too aggressive and pushing a point of view against consensus (and while I myself cannot say, there does appear to be circumstantial evidence that may support this) I'd like to see you try the conventional methods of dispute resolution. Maybe AlanMak will respond to discussion on his talk page, especially if others chime in. If he doesn't and you still think his behavior is problematic, discuss the problem with your colleagues with a view to starting a RfC. If you have been through those steps and there are people who agree with you that Alanmak's behavior is unacceptable, then bring it to arbitration. The Committee has had problems with you in the past, but that is because you have not been patient enough to follow this route. If you do, I promise you that you will have more success in dealing with bias on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If I were not patient the trouble wouldn't have carried on for more than a year. And if you don't already know, user:Alanmak actually disregarded user:Jiang's and my messages at his talk page, deleting them with edit summary saying "disregard bullshit", "vandalism" or no summary at all. At the moment administrators' action is urgently needed for all articles you've mentioned above. — Instantnood 15:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a classic user conduct dispute. I highly recommend that you get together with Jiang put together an RfC outlining those attempts to resolve the issue and his inappropriate response. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please also look into each of the articles that you've named above, and see what else we can actually do? Meanwhile, the ban on me is in effect keeping user:Alanmak and user:SchmuckyTheCat edits for two weeks. Please kindly review, as an administrator, whether their edits have to be reverted. Thanks. — Instantnood 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a content issue, something that an administrator cannot really resolve any better than any other editor. If you think that an article is unbalanced, use an article RfC to see if you can attract other editors to examine the issue. The thing to realise is that you are not the only editor, and if you can obtain consensus then you'll have no shortage of people willing to correct inbalance. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've brought many discussion to listing on RfC, but very very few people actually join the discussion from there. — Instantnood 20:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Zoso.png

===>I dunno After viewing the pages you suggested, I don't really have any insight into the matter. My guess would be that it's completely fair to use, as much as if I had an album title made up of "3Ə¥ŋ" (in case you don't have Uncode, that's four random characters...) -Justin (koavf), talk 17:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm quite sure that the name is uncopyrightable, whatever writing system is used. It's the copyright on the image that concerns me. --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in (Koavf's talk page is still on my watch list from the wax lips question last night) but I just wanted to point out that the "runes" in that image aren't any language at all. Each one (including the "zoso") was created to represent a different member of Led Zeppelin. So they're not public domain; they're original works of art made to look like ancient symbols. That being said, since it's album cover art (and, actually, it was only on the spine - Led Zep's 4th album is technically untitled), it seems to me it should be fair use. If entire album covers can be depicted under fair use, surely a tiny part of the cover can be, too, no? Kafziel 18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't the design of the symbols (which are all derived from other sources), or the choice of runes, but the specific depiction produced by artists working on behalf of Atlantic Records or Led Zeppelin in 1971, or in similar contexts for Swansong Records or Led Zeppelin. Or anybody else, for that matter. As it happens, today User:freakofnurture has produced his own artist's impression of those symbols, and release the image into the public domain. This is free content and we can use it forever, and moreover it is recognisably the sequence of symbols chosen by the members of Led Zeppelin to represent their fourth album. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening cases

Please don't use subst to open the /Workshop and /Proposed decision pages until it is fixed so that the correct template results. I'm tired of fixing it by hand. Please copy the actual templates Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Template/Proposed decision until it is fixed.

Wiki-Sidaway

Hi. I've placed myself up for review on WP:ER. I'd like it if you could comment. -Zero 19:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Truncated statement of evidence?

Tony, your statement of evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence seems oddly truncated - perhaps you could take a look at it? -- ChrisO 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Cantus

Hi Tony. I wanted to tell you that Kiw (talk · contribs) looks an awful lot like your friend Cantus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with a history of socketpuppeting (don't wou love making up words?). Just letting you know. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 08:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an old and acknowledged sock of Cantus, now indefinitely blocked. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

would you mind keeping an eye on Developed country, possible additional sockpuppets performing the same deletes. thanks. Appleby 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Aaron

As an involved party in the matter, you probably shouldn't have been the one to block Aaron. Phil Sandifer 05:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As a clerk, it's not like I have much choice in being involved. I'm not taking any crap from people who want to make clerking harder than it already is. --Tony Sidaway

Oh, I agree with you. It just... makes us look tackier if you, who have a past of dustups with Aaron, block him for something you were involved in. Especially when there are uninvolved clerks with a past of dustups with Aaron to do it. Phil Sandifer 06:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tacky is a good word. I think your explanation of not wanting to "take any crap" pretty much says it all. This looks to me like a temper block. If that's how it's going to be, I'd rather see you put your time in somewhere other than clerking. Friday (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Phil was the right person to do a block either given HIS past history. You two and Aaron need to stay away from each other, period. He should have known WAY better than to change one of your headings (even if he was perhaps right about the heading... The text you wrote was in my view very accurate and helpful but was it "official"? ) and you should have known better than to escalate to a block over a heading change without at least trying to talk about it or ask for help. IMHO anyway. I would ask you to let it go at this point and not escalate any further.

As Aaron promised when he stood, he's starting an RfC on himself and his time as Admin so far at the 3 month mark (coming up soon) so perhaps you might want to consider if you can say something constructive /thoughtful/well reasoned there. I feel your initial comments on Aaron's RfA were pretty amazing, they must have been hard to write for you. Even if you subsequently ended up changing your mind, my hat was off to you for that, sir. I'll reiterate, if there's anything I can do to help, you have but to ask and I will try. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This may be good PR, but do you honestly think that it won't make his recent misbehavior absolutely transparent? That good ole history link, you know, shows that he planned his campaign in advance, and clearly intended to abuse WP:RFAR for the purpose of his tawdry political ambition. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think, Tony. I may be a bad judge of people but I see he and you both as good people, bereft of tawdry political ambition, and wanting to do what is best for the encyclopedia. If you have particular links that you think I should see I would appreciate being made aware of them. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawdry political ambition

This is clearly a personal attack. I'm not actually offended, but it is an attack, just not a very good one: Could you expand this attack with some diffs and a bit of exposition so I can understand what exactly it is that I'm meant to have done? Reply here, I'll put this page back on my watchlist for a while.
As to the wider issue, you still don't seem to understand the actual problem:

• The block was bad form, but I really could give a rat's arse about that. Annoying, irritating, autoblocker makes me pull my hair out, etc. But no harm done to me, water under the bridge, etc. I'm only concerned about what the block says about your mindset.
• Clerk's don't have any authority. Full stop. Your continued insistance that the block was not only justified but required (e.g. "it's not like I have much choice") is troubling, but still not the central issue.
• The real issue is that you've apparently got no idea what it is you're conceptually meant to be doing as a clerk. You simply can not be making recomendations or observations, personal observations, and putting them under the clerk banner. The fact that I agree with those views is immaterial.
  

brenneman 01:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've picked up on this from the Clerks page an AN/I, so forgive me for poking my nose in. I'd like to comment on your third point. I've just been over the Clerks page for the fourth time today, and I still see nothing prohibiting Clerks from expressing opinions, suggestions or analysis. In fact, there's language to suggest they're allowed, just like everyone else. I agree that Clerks have no authority, but I've looked up on things there, and over at RFAr, and I'm not seeing anywhere Tony has used the Clerk's office to justify the block...only his presence in commenting as a Clerk on that page.

But your third point...with respect, Aaron, until we're appointed to the ArbCom, neither of us have any say on what Tony should be doing as a clerk. The Arbitrators created the position, they appointened the clerks, and they decide how they'll evaluate their input. If you felt he misrepreseted you or someone else's views, that's one thing...you could have stated so. But you changed his comments in, frankly, a pointless fashion. --InkSplotch 02:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Clerk

I am pleased that Aaron hasn't been "coming after" you as much as some had discussed while he was running for adminship. But It should be obvious that he seems to try and goad you, provoke you and be a bit of an pest. If he has a beef with your summaries, etc., he should have found another way to handle it. I think (and don't get me wrong 'cause I like Aaron a lot and I think he does good work) had I been you, I would have done the block that you did. After edit conflict, I see the above so maybe my perception is off again.--MONGO 01:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with him but I get weary of his semingly endless penchant for silly bloody stunts like this. --Tony Sidaway 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It's going to make it hard for me to continue not savaging you for your wild-eyed block if you insist on making personal attacks without providing a skerrick of evidence. You may have noticed that I'm trying to be as nice as possible while adressing the actual issue of what a clerk should and shouldn't do. I've not asked you to justify the block, not asked for you to comment on this occasion at all. You, on the other hand, have had a few good kicks at me. It would probably look better for you if you limited yourself to facts: Silly bloody stunts like and and . Stop making it personal. - brenneman 07:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You're both fine editors and contributors to the project. "Mistakes were made". Please forgive each other and move on. -Will Beback 08:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Tony Sidaway 10:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re my email

Thanks for fixing things per my email (removing item from history). Next time I'll combine WP:AGF with WP:AWPC (Assume Misplaced Pages Policy Cluelessness). Martinp 15:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. --Tony Sidaway 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim Nussle, again....

I just happened to glance at the Jim Nussle article, and I found that the article had recently been vadalized again. The changes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) were all made by the anonymous user 207.32.33.5.

I was wondering since Nussle seems to be more and more of a target about the possibility of having his article protected to keep new and anonymous users from changing the article.
JesseG 02:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that our old friend FourthAve is back. The El Reyko 07:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim Nussle is of course a target. You Republicans think it's OK to vandalize Wiki by removing or adding damaging info about a candidate (as with Jim's adultery), i.e, you target evil Jim as the best thing since Tammy Faye Bakker. But not currently by me, boychiks. That request for Arb was way outta line, and was simply ignored. The updated version will be similarly ignored. You guys are out of the loop. Rant and rave all you like: I snoop into your mail and your edits.

As for the comments about the Julien Dubuque Bridge, someone seems to be having visual and auditory hallucinations.--FourthAve 08:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We're going to have to do something about that trollery of yours. Are you sure[REDACTED] is the place for you...? That is not the way we carry ourselves at this site. -Zero 10:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Policy

Refer to:

• 04:13, 26 April 2006 Tony Sidaway blocked "Aaron Brenneman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Mucking about with clerk notes)
• Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used

See also:

• Misplaced Pages:Edit war

Tony, I'd like assurances that you'll not abuse adminstrator privledges by violate blocking policy in this manner again. --User:Aaron Brenneman 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You have my assurance that I will never abuse my administrator privileges. The very thought is utterly alien to me. --Tony Sidaway 01:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a non-reply. Just to be clear it's either:

A. You will not again abuse your adminstrator's privileges. (or)

B. This was not an abuse of adminstrator's privileges.

brenneman 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't put it plainer than I have. I will not abuse my administrator privileges, ever. --Tony Sidaway 02:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that this is the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section? I would have prefered to move on to actual issues, but your continued agressive stance leaves me an unpalatable choice: Either letting go your statements that I deserved a block, or escalating this?
brenneman 02:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem here unless you want there to be. You have asked me whether I'll ever abuse my administrator privileges and I have told you that I have no intention of doing so. You're describing my stance as "aggressive", but I think you should examine your own approach. You seem to be absolutely unwilling to accept a simple assurance. I have told you that the thought of abusing my administrator privileges is abhorrent to me. Again you refuse to accept this. --Tony Sidaway 02:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any significant opinion on whether you "deserved" a block. At the time it seemed like a sensible action. By coincidence, another clerk acting independently made the same decision. He and I could both be wrong, but this is something we can discuss without your impugning my forthrightness and willingness to assure you that I will never abuse my administrator privileges. --Tony Sidaway 02:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for making that small step towards actual dialog. Really, that's a sincere "thank you." I've no doubt it seemes sensible at the time: Almost everything does. There is some internal contradiction in your statement, but I really don't want you to have to sweat blood over this, so you'll hear no more from me about it.
brenneman 03:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You only needed to listen. Happy editing. --Tony Sidaway 03:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration, Administrative divisions, Tobias Conradi

Pardon me, I'm still learning the resolution process. My understanding was that once RfCs had been processed, and Mediation had been refused, the only recourse is Arbitration. Moreover, that Arbitration is the only binding dispute resolution for which enforcement can be requested.

1. Are you saying that I've merely mislabelled the request?
2. Or are you saying that under the current process, as long as a sufficiently large gang of miscreants is cooperating and not misbehaving too badly, any content is permitted, no matter how badly the material deviates from standard practices in the rest of the world?

--William Allen Simpson 02:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've no serious grasp of the merits of your claim, but as a clerk I feel it's necessary to suggest that the difference of opinion may be best explored using normal discussion. I could be wrong, and I'm aware of that, so I've expressed my assessment in very tentative terms. --Tony Sidaway 02:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I expect the merits to be decided in a request. In legal terms, I'm asking about the standards of review, ripeness, and standing.

1. Only inter-personal RfCs and Mediation appeals?
2. Abuse of process appeals?

Certainly, I can reframe as covering any inter-personal misbehaviour. But a lack of process and policy review would explain why many experts are unwilling to participate in Misplaced Pages, and the continuing references to cabals and gangs.

--William Allen Simpson 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be two problems here. Firstly, the interpersonal dispute, secondly the content problems. Normally the Arbitration Committee tries to steer clear of content issues, leaving them to the community to decide if at all possible. I do understand the reticence of experts to participate--unfortunately Wikiedia has a strong anti-elitist community and this often makes it hard to make progress. --Tony Sidaway 03:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have recast as an inter-personal issue. Of course, the disruption of proper content is my primary concern, but there are plenty of ancillary issues. I've just discovered that Conradi has been banned at de. Had my RfC been taken more seriously 4 months ago, this whole problem could have been nipped in the bud.

--William Allen Simpson 15:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The section is very large. Would it be possible to trim it back to essentials of the case? If the case is accepted, you will have plenty of time and opportunity to present all pertinent evidence. Arbitrators are much, much more likely to take the time to read a section under 500 words. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just an inbred 'merican

Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three, I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be. This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red. My father fell in love with her, and soon they, too, were wed.

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life, My daughter was my mother, cause she was my father's wife. To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy, I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad, And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad. For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother Of the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.

Father's wife then had a son who kept him on the run, And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son. My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue, Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother, too.

Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild, And everytime I think of it, it nearly drives me wild, For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa! --MONGO 03:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant! --Tony Sidaway 12:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A favor please

Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (here please) on my performance as a wikipedian. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 10:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I know you remember me. --Bhadani 10:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do. --Tony Sidaway 12:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 19:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

First off i restored a section deleted in violation of an AFD, which is against policy, mainly because it was removed in violation of WP:NPOV and in violation of WP:AFD. My reasoning was made clear. Then i stuck to my 1RR as my first edit wasnt a revert, it was a restoration.

Second, User:Deathrocker already admitted to using Anons before to vandalise mine and Admin Sceptres user pages, as well as to impersonate me.

Third off, i also requested advice on how to deal with the Children of Bodom article. A serial vandal (A check user has shown 5 different anons and 3 user names to be the same person) keeps removing the Melodic Black from the info box, regardless of being warned by a WP:RFC and the admin warning on the article by admin User:Snowflake. So if you would care to assist in this matter, that would be appreciated, as they have openly stated that they can simply change the article as many times as they want because of my 1RR.

Ive only used an Anon once, and i admitted to that and requested a 1 week block for it after using it to make a few comments on things, so that somethings were clear regarding some plans for working a series of articles, and so i could assert my view. In that time, the history for that anon can be checked, i edited no articles on it, only talk pages, to honour my ban. Im not unreasonable if people are not unreasonable with me. Ley Shade 19:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I put in a complaint about Spearhead after he used the 1RR thing against me, as i tried time and time again to tell him i agree with the deletion of the part, but not when an AFD said it was to be kept. I offered to open an RFC but he refused, so, there wasnt much i could do. I didnt realise doing a restoration was going to get me banned though.

However the Children of Bodom article is getting a hell of a lot of vandalism, and i cant revert it either. Is there any chance you can revert it and put a protection on it. That way the user might actually engage in using the talk page like i already asked them to do. I even refernced them to the RFC and explained WP:CITE and WP:NPOV to them, and they still refused to care, there whole attitdue was Misplaced Pages sucks, yew suck, and i can do whatever i want. I know im 'skating on thin ice', so thats why im actually asking for yew to do something about it, and enforce a little bit of anti-vandalism here. Ley Shade 20:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at this later. Please be patient in the meantime. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The IP is back on the Children of Bodom article . This page really needs reverting back to the unvandalised version and protecting, it so frustrates me i cannot do anything to stop this vandalistic mess, i dont even know the wiki for the board to alert against vandals =(. Ley Shade 00:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That looks to me like the kind of editing that I'd describe as a content dispute. It appears to me that this fellow has a minor quibble about the precise wording of the description of the subgenre of heavy metal to which the band's music belongs. How do you feel about this characterization? Do I have it wrong? --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

An RFC already went through with the user before, and it was decided that in according to WP:CITE and WP:NOR, that the majority of sources claimed the band to be those three, so the RFC decided they should be listed. Then i brainstormed the Genre Controversy section to account for the other minor sources which the RFC didnt even ask me to do, and was copyedited for better neutrality.

However, since my 1RR, the user has claimed themselfs Above Policy, and has sworn to use as many anons and sockpuppets as he needs to to violate WP:NPOV until only his view remains based on his comment I dislike black metal and refuse to accept cob as being black metal. This isnt very Misplaced Pages like, as i also dislike Black Metal and Death Metal, but they are still there because thats what sources say.

All attempts at working with the user have been ignored, as have countless admin warnings. Due to this, im at a loss at what to do, as initially i autothered the first RFC to deal with the content dispute, but now the user is clearly vandalising the page in an attempt to disregard sourced information and the neautriulity of POV.

The RFC and all efforts made at on the Children of Bodom talk page, for you to look at if you need to. Ley Shade 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if I appear a little slow on this but heavy metal isn't my subject. I seem to recall listening to Paranoid in 1970 and deciding it wasn't for me. I'm still investigating. At first sight I'd say that it doesn't look like much of a consensus emerged from the RfC if you often find yourself fighting a lone battle on this issue. But there could be other factors. --Tony Sidaway 02:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the consensus was basically that the information with most sources goes on the infobox, and the not so sourced information goes on the Genre Contoversy. The irony of this is that the part the anon keeps violating policy and admin warnings by removing, is the one that has the most sources in support of it =\ Ley Shade 02:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The user just blanked my talk page , which has thankfully been reverted by some Kungfu person . I think this somewhat proves the ill faith of the user. Ley Shade 04:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

More edits to the Children of Bodom and Melodic Death Metal articles (Which is also admin warned by Snowflake), blanking the Death Metal references in favour of Black Metal, with a revert war seemingly starting that is nothing to do with me. This is what i keep getting caught up in, and which is why the page needs protecting. Sorry to keep asking for help, but the WP:HMM has put a lot of work into that article it saddens me deeply to see revert wars slowly detoriate the quality of the work of so many good wikipedians. Ley Shade 06:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

user space layout

Thanks for inspiring my user space layout. (Although mine is very spartan and uses no images.) Kimchi.sg 03:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A comment, I don't mean to bother you

Hello Tony Sideways, I appriciate the good work you did to present my arbitration in a clean, easy to understand manner. There is one point, however, I would beg your attention about. My understanding of NPOV, it states; "Editors understand the stated word differently contains elements of the sympathetic point of view approach which has been considered and rejected by Misplaced Pages policy makers." Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed_decision#Terryeo.27s_interpretation_of_NPOV. And that is true, my statement does contain elements of that point. But I'm not trying to communicate an advocacy, I'm trying to present that the information which comprises these subjects, while not easily presented, can be presented. I am trying to say that it is not an advocacy to present a subject in a manner that an average reader might understand the subject. But it would be a counter-advocacy to mis-present the subject so an average reader could not understand it. I appreciate that you have cleanly presented almost all of the issue as I meant it and appriciate that I am no part of the process going on. In particular your inclusion of Xenu.net has already resulted in cleaner statements at WP:RS which will mean better use of secondary sources of information. But there are advocacy editors whom brought the request, whom advocate against the subjects being actually presented. The subjects are difficult enough to understand, but when every other sentence must include a counter-advocacy, the information which comprises the subject simply can't be presented for the reader to understand. Examples are, in their first paragraphs, Thetan presents its information while Dianetics does not. I hope I'm not offending or misconstruing what the arbitration committee understands they are voting on. I simply don't know where else to turn toward clear introductions of these subjects. I'll understand if no action is taken. You all have been pretty tolerant of the upsets my editing has caused.Terryeo 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have forwarded this to all of the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 19:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Terryeo 06:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My case.

I am frankly afraid of you. I've seen the edit-revert-block war you have with at least one other admin. Your integrity as an admin has been called into question. I'm afraid you've already decided to ban me for a year. I think you will so block when you read this far. It would be into your interest to recuse yourself from this case. Sean Black, Dbachmann are fine by me, or one chosen by the two of them is fine.

It's only in the last 7-10 days that I've discovered there is zero privacy on wikipedia, i.e., I've learned how to snoop into anyone's edit list or mail.

An adequate response means an immense amount of copy-paste.

The present case was a cabal, two friends or sockpuppets thereof who worked in tandem to avoid the 3R rule. No one here gives a damn about Jim Nussle, but I insisted on mentioning the lurid details of his divorce and the politically-charged details of the homewrecker's employment history. Jesus Christ, or whatever his username is, insisted on removing it, and leaving mail elsewhere thanking the other for support.

I would have been happy to have neutrally spoken of the topic, but the cabal objected. The 3R bit came to a head, and I objected, mainly in mail, to this abuse. Then Jesus Christ asked for this obscure procedure.

I got blocked, and once unblocked (by you, I think), I then got offensive emails from everyone and sent them to hell; I did not want to see this s--- at the top of my pages. No, I do not understand highWikipedia procedure.

Enough. It's going to take me at least a week (I can write; give me a month to anihilate Jesus Christ and his cabal) to assemble the evidence. I personally don't think Jesus Christ is guilty of sockpuppetry, but it's in my interest to investigate him for it, and this will take some time.

As for sockpuppets, no. The only case where you get an IP address is where[REDACTED] has timed me out and I didn't notice.

I still find the Julien Dubuque Bridge bits hallucinatory. I framed a debate. See Black Hawk Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourthAve (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be afraid of me. I don't block unless the person in question needs to be blocked. I blocked you three times in early and mid-March when you were vandalizing Jim Nussle and attacking lots of people. If you don't do that there is no need to block you. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

E-Mail

I sent you one; if you have recieved and replied already, could you send again..? I may have deleted it when I was clearing out messages from the wiki mailing list. If not, disregard the latter. -Zero 12:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just went and had a look and there it is. I'll reply as soon as I can. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry about that, I was simply worried I missed a potential reply from you last night while clearing out the wiki notice crap. I had over 145 messages piled up and wasn't really paying attention to detail as I was mass deleting. -Zero 19:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I presume you're not going to send it...? I've checked, and I haven't seen it. Perhaps I overlooked it..? -Zero 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Muhamed

Hi, I notice that three arbitrators have considered your application and voted to reject, because Muhamed hasn't edited English Misplaced Pages for over a month. Would you mind if I closed this request without prejudice? If he ever returns to English Misplaced Pages and his behavior continues to present a problem, you will be able to re-open the request at any time. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats possible but I was really hoping for some sort of general ruling that discourages such behaviour.

I know it is common sense, so I do not believe it is too hard to make it a policy. But if you feel that isn't possible feel free to close it.

--Cat out 23:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As I suggested, I'll close it for now and if he comes back you can open it again. --Tony Sidaway 00:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker

Concerning Deathrocker's arbcom case. The user is now claiming that Myself/Idont and Admin Sceptre are assuming bad faith in our statements on the ArbCom case.

On the talk page, he is also Wikilawyering claiming the whole Case is against policy, and claiming Sceptre is abusing his admin powers by filing the case, a claim that during his one month block he extended to five other admins that refused to unblock him, and several more on the ANI board.

He his also making claims that im making inflamatory claims and lying in my arbcom statement, but in the numerous times ive asked him to provide diffs he has refused. He's also persisting in making uncivil comments about my Parole, and telling me that i have to assume good faith or i will be banned, something which he seems to be gloating on.

In honesty it feels a lot like he is trying to bait me into making a personal attack or being incivil, as he seems to have a firm belief that i myself should not be allowed to comment on the Arbcom case at all.

Mainly i just dont know how to react or what to do, as ive tried apologising if i came across uncivil and asked him to not make personal attacks , and both times he has ignored this and persisted in making inflamtory remarks. I am at a point of wanting to tell him to go F**k Himself, but i already told him that i have no like of him, but i will try to treat all my fellow Wikipedian's with respect .

Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this, because he is really trying my patience. Ley Shade 09:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Avoid responding. The arbitrators aren't fools and will realise that you are being baited. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted on my Statement about what you have said in relation to my discontinuation of contact with Deathrocker and moved his comments from my Statement to his own. Since then he put those parts back, defaced my statement through removing sections i had to then restore, and then sat making personal attacks in my statment calling me 'Childish', 'Pathetic', 'Grasping At Straws'. Christ i have a whole list and then some i just added to my Statement. The user is going out of his way now to push me, and im determined not to respond, but he has vandalised my user page and Sceptres before, and with his defacing of my Statement, the user is causing me untold Wikistress. I plea for assistance in having this user removed from editing my Statement and Userpage. Ley Shade 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll investigate his behavior and may make comments on it. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Software resoponse to deleted articles.

I have noticed that once an article is deleted, all references to any edits to that article will also be deleted in a user's contributions. This was indeed the case with me vis-a-vis the 1911 EB project (I made innumerable annotations to the 20-some pages involved, and for a while, you'd get nothing but screenload after screenload of edit notices of in my user comments).

I know an admin can 'undelete' an article, which seems to mean they can look at it. I wonder if one can look at anything deleted from user contribs via deletion of an article.

Specifically, there is one set of exchanges between Jaysuschris and myself that I cannot find; as I recall it was on a talk page where he thanked another user for his support against me (perhaps his or another's sock puppet). There was another exchange where, looking at this user's edit history, I made a comment that Jaysus had forgotten to change accounts. This would have probably been in February, perhaps earlier, maybe into early March. This is why I believed JC was one of Nussle's trolls, following the example of Capitol Hill staffers in vandalizing articles.

If there is a quick and easy way of determining this, it will save me many laborious hours of viewing all of his edits. Has JC asked that anything be deleted? How can one tell? Reviewing myself, I behaved abominably, but there was provocation.

I would also add there is someone lurking behind this who posted some vile anti-semitic material in my mail -- Sean Black resolved this. I'm told it was an aol account. I don't think this was JC, in that the edits were mostly in the sandbox; a kid probably.

I also add that an admin's ability to eliminate any trace of any previous posting -- including ones in their own mail -- adds to my current paranoia. --FourthAve 00:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I shall be careful

You on my talk page in response to my request: in response to my request for comments: I suppose that if I have a concern it's with your mass-spamming of user talk pages. It's probably better to place such requests in a single location--on your own talk page or user page is best--where those who are familiar enough with your work to watchlist them will see it.

My reply: Thank you Tony - yes Tony, as you had asked me to call you Tony and not Mr. Tony when I had a talk with you a year before. I shall be more careful, and shall avoid "mass-spamming". I will also not do "select-spamming" (?). No, sometimes, I will have to do "select-spamming". I was just kidding! Now, I am leaving you in peace for few weeks. About a year back on 22nd April 2005, You gave me an exceptional new comer barnstar, and I thank you you every year for the same. In case, you find that I have done some exceptional work during last 12 months or next 12 months, please do not forget to give me another barnstar! --Bhadani 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve

This arbitration case has closed. FourthAve is banned from Misplaced Pages for a year, and is placed on personal attack parole, probation, and general probation. This will be enforced by block. I have carried out the one-year-ban in my capacity as an administrator. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dualabs

Dear TS,
While I realize that an admin does not simply close an AfD based on the votes, but based also on his/her personal assessment, I would like to understand how you arrived at "keep and expand" for this AfD. There were three delete votes and a merge vote from the creator of the article. Did you close this way because of the recent track record of the nominator, to make a WP:POINT? Instead of measuring consensus, you did something er... revolutionary. I would appreciate an explanation, and I hope no offense is taken. I am just trying to understand what took place. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the role of the AfD closer has changed somewhat over time, to the point where he is in effect summarising the sense of the debate in the light of deletion policy and the best interests of the encyclopedia. The article contains verifiable information and thus it would not be in the interests of Misplaced Pages to remove that information permanently. In my closing I also considered whether the article should be merged to United States Census, and decided that it probably wasn't appropriate to do so until an honest attempt had been made to expand the article. This decision was in line with the deletion policy, which is that articles on subjects so minor that they don't merit an article should be merged, not deleted. The assertions that the company was not "notable" seem implausible, as I said, because of the company's provenance (former employees of the Census Bureau) and its important role in producing what remain the only sources of census microdata for the 1960 and 1970 census.

You may also notice that after the close I made a small edit to expand the article and provide another reference.

I hope this explains adequately why I closed the debate as I did. If not, please by all means let's discuss it further; I could be persuaded that the close I have just performed was not the best thing for the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 02:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly understand that you had your reasons. Just one more point: what of WP:CORP? That and the fact that the article will certainly never progress beyond a very short stub. I am certainly not going to pursue this further - I'd rather go to more productive things with my wikitime. I appreciate your response. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CORP is a guideline for deciding whether a company is notable, but clearly this particular company is notable simply because of the nature of its work. I recognise that the article may never expand beyond the current rather brief stub, but the stub contains very useful information so that isn't, in itself, a problem. It may be decided at some point in the future that the information should be merged into United States Census. I could have made that choice in closing, but as the article is only a little over a week old I'd like to give it a chance to grow.

I have discovered the name of the company's President, and the fact that (according to one source) he played an important role in compiling the 1960 census. Another important piece of information, yet to be gathered, is the nature of the compression algorithm used, and any associated patents. Since this company handled data of pivotal importance to modern historians, I feel that the article merits extremely careful handling. --Tony Sidaway 03:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the third party buttinksi here, but I think this should probably go to WP:DRV. It would have been better for you to argue the points you make here in the Afd to see what other folks thought of them, rather than taking such an activist stand in closure. I do like that you're arguing content-wise why it should be kept, rather than procedure-wise, but I wonder how many other editors would agree with your reasoning. To me, they seem like a historical footnote. They are verifiable, which is more than you can say for many deleted things, but if there's nothing sufficiently important to merge into the census article, I wonder what the point of keeping this is. Unless you're willing to argue that any company that ever does work for a significant corporation is itself a significant corporation, I'm not sure why you say this company is encylopedic. I don't see a good reason to disregard WP:CORP here. Friday (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CORP can never provide a reason for deletion, only a justification for inclusion. Far from being a historical footnote, the DUALabs encrypted data is just about the only source of microdata on the 1960 census, which is an ongoing headache for archivists since some of the compression programs were written in assembler to operate on ancient reel computer tapes using a nonstandard data encoding scheme. --Tony Sidaway 04:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridge Racer

Please see Talk:Ridge Racer#R:Racing Evolution. There's an odd dispute occuring over there, and due to the twists and bends I'm inquiring for more outside views to hopefully disfuse the situation prior to requesting protection. -Zero 03:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Vít Zvánovec

Hi. I know nothing about this user, but they've been emailing me asking me to lift their block. It seems that they're sort-of unclear about what a block is (as distinct from being banned) and genuinely want to discuss the circumstances of it with you, but haven't gotten a response. It may make sense for you to leave a note at User talk:Vít Zvánovec with further explanation about the block. I have neither interest in, nor opinion about, the user or the block, beyond wanting to make sure that the user is clear about what not to do in the future. Jkelly 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll check my email. He is also able to write on his talk page. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Jkelly 21:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You have blocked me and it was the last drop which made me to leave Misplaced Pages altogether. I plan to answer you either by an e-mail either on my blog by larger text sometime. Thanks to you for fastening my final decision. -- Vít Zvánovec 11:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Once you had started calling your fellow Wikipedians fascists, I think you had outstayed your welcome. Don't you? --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrator deletion of OITC Fraud article

Today an administrator by the name Tony Sidaway deleted the article in reference, saying that "the result of the debate was delete as misinformation". As any person who checks the deletion debate can ascertain, this is simply not true. The majority of Misplaced Pages users that intervened in the debate (7, to my count), voted to keep and/or move or clean. Only two, including one of the people who vandalized the article, voted for deletion.

If there is no respect whatsoever for the results of the debate, as in this case, what is the sense of having one? I respectfully request the reinstatement of the article. An explanation by Tony Sidaway would also be appropriate. >(talk) ]

Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master DRVU

It looks like you mistakenly removed this debate when closing Template: Unamerican and friends. As such, I relisted it. Did you mean to close it? Kotepho 18:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I screwed up. Thanks for fixing it. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

greetings from a former a.a person!

Just a quick note to say hello and send warm greetings from sunny Florida from a former inhabitatant of usenet's a.a. (re, for ex., the woll. fellow). After much thought (and quite a long time ago!) I concluded that that your take on the entire matter in that port 119 world was the most humane one to take and the best for all concerned, and also bailed. Drop me a line if you're ever in the Southwest environs of the "Sunshine state" so that I might buy you a nice cold brew (the way it was surely intended to be imbibed), or, alternatively, your favorite non-alcoholic imibibeable. We do have some great iced Tea and gulf seafood 'ya know. With warm regards, I am, hgoldste at that mpcs.com place aka Flawiki 01:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. Oh I remember you a little too. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the recollection is not all bad. I lost interest once things started getting all (borrowing an expression, probably incorrectly since we don't use it this side of the pond) "pear shaped" over in that other place, and don't bother with it anymore. It is far more collegial and enlightening, not to mention, more humane (mostly), over here. Accordingly, it's more satisfying too, as I suspect you've noticed... At any rate I just wanted to say howdy and hope things are going well with you. I'm pleased to have seen you here as we mightn't have crossed paths had I not noticed your username pop up on a talk page that was sitting on my watchlist for a reason completely unrelated to my saying howdy. Best, --Flawiki 03:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Very pleasant recollections. You were among a very few people who seemed able to keep a sense of proportion about the affair. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Snotty

Hello. I'm confused by the redirect at Snotty to Midshipman because that term is not mentioned there on that page. Can you give me a clue? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 17:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's there. The page currently contains the following text:

In Royal Navy slang, midshipmen are sometimes referred to as "snotties", and a somewhat dubious urban legend states that the three buttons formerly on the jacket cuffs of the midshipman were placed there to prevent him wiping his nose on his sleeve . --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! (I'd turn this Firefox option back on to "begin finding when you begin typing" but this computer is soooooo slow.) Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 20:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The external link is out of date. I'll update it. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Further bans and a block

Thank you for attempting to deal with the content dispute, but I'm afraid my right to defend my position was not protected. For this reason, I would like to apply for lifting the block and the bans, in order to put up my arguments at WP:AE. I promise I won't conduct any edit that involves any sort of revert to any of the articles you've listed on my user talk page, before my arguments are heard, and the bans and the block are reconsidered. Thank you. — Instantnood 18:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please respect the block. You may put a {{unblock}} template on your talk page and request a review of the block. I'll also note this on WP:AN in the interests of transparency. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot agree. I was not notified about user:SchmuckyTheCat's request at WP:AE. I was not given any opportunity to defend my position before the block was imposed, and the block was imposed with only one-sided comment. I'm not criticising your or anybody's decision, but I just can't believe it's the way Misplaced Pages mechanism deals with these matters, if neutrality, justice, consensus, balances are really meant to be treasured.

" I have banned him under his probation from several articles on which he had edited disruptively. ", " Because he doesn't appear to be learning to moderate his behavior but instead simply goes to edit war on another article, I also blocked Instantnood for 48 hours for disruption. " - I'd wonder if the same conclusion would have come up if my arguments were considered. — Instantnood 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please kindly explain the arguments, reasoning and rationale behind the block and each of the page bans. Thank you. — Instantnood 20:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Devons

My theory is that in porn as soon as somoene has had relative success with a name, a bunch of counterfeits set out to steal their market. mgekelly 14:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with a user

I have noticed a couple problems with a certain user, Earwig. I linked to his talk page as his user page contains a somewhat abrasive image, which is a slight part of my problem. I am well aware of wikipedia's non-censorship standing and its free use image policies, but I feel this user may be going too far simply to prove a point, or to cause trouble. It would make sense for one to expect such an image on a related article, but in the interest of communication between editors, it would seem to me that userpages and talk pages would be best kept within a normal socially acceptable level. Also, this editor has spent quite a few of his edits, if not the majority, adding so called "objectionable" material to articles. In some cases this makes perfect sense as the picture is relevant to the article or section it is placed in. Other times he seems to cross a line to irrelevancy and it would appear he is doing so just to be funny, or create some kind of shock-factor that[REDACTED] really does not need. I have brought this concern with him regarding a specific article on his talk page, but I dont want to proceed to far with this untill I am clear with what actions of his (and potential actions on the part of me or other editors) are appropriate and what is not. Thanks in advance.--Oni Ookami Alfador 17:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Need help on User:Instantnood

The stated user has again engaged in some unreasonable edits. In Hong Kong, China at the 2004 Summer Olympics, Template:HKGold, Template:Hong Kong (PRC) and Oneworld, Instantnood has repeatedly trying to reuse the redundant flag Image:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png, which was replaced by Image:Flag of Hong Kong.svg. The reason given by the user was something about the color and stars, however with a side by side comparson I cannot find any differences. In article Ma On Shan, the user has keep adding past information as current (see my reasoning on Talk:Ma_On_Shan). Thanks for you attention. Hunter 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

University of Dubuque

Tony, could you put the University of Dubuque article in semi-protected status as well? I happened upon the article this evening and an anonymous editor at put in a paragraph regarding a legal dispute between a professor and the school.
JesseG 02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I semi-protected. Also removed some nonsense about parking permits. Whatever next? --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood

Hi Tony, I checked Instantnood's edits on Macao, China from Dec2005 till his/her ban from that article. I couldn't see a reason for the ban on that article. I make no comment on his/her other behviour of which, currently, I have little knowledge. I'd appreciate your reasons. Thanks. Mccready 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now checked this user's edits on List of bridges and it appears there is a legitimate reason for his/her edits. An edit summary of this user pointed to the difference between a country and a sovereign state. Hong Kong is listed as the former but not the later. Mccready 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've now checked his/her behaviour on Hong_Kong_national_football_team. He/she used the discussion page appropriately, organised a poll and edited accordingly. He/she suffered incivility from other users. I can't see why he/she is banned from the page. I have not looked at his/her editing on other pages and will await your comments. Thanks again. Mccready 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've launched a request for review of the bans against Instantnood , in response to a direct request from Instantnood. Please make your comments there so that other administrators can review them. I think my bans are in line with the probation, but I will not object to any modifications made by another administrator.

Please also see:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement:
  • SchmuckyTheCat, 16 April
  • Tony Sidaway, 22 April
  • Ashibaka, 24 April
  • SchmuckyTheCat, 2 May
  • Tony Sidaway, 3 May

--Tony Sidaway 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I've copied the comments as requested and checked the links. As you were the blocker is there any reason why you can't unblock, assuming you agree with my analysis? I'm a bit concerned that justice delayed is justice denied. Mccready 11:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He isn't currently blocked. I don't agree that the bans are inappropriate, but I don't object to review and modification by other administrators. --Tony Sidaway 11:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again tony, I appreciate the time you have taken. Are you saying my comments about the 3 page histories I examined are wrong? I'd be happy to know if I am mistaken? Mccready 12:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He edit warred on some of those articles, so he was temporarily banned from them, then he continued edit warring on other articles and so he is now banned from editing any of them during his one year probation. --Tony Sidaway 12:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Office of International Treasury Control

Hi Tony,

Following your (IMO quite correct) decision to delete OITC fraud and the subsequent discussion on WP:DRV, I've created Office of International Treasury Control as a (hopefully) NPOV version of the article. Comments welcomed.

Could you also please keep an eye on the article - put it in your watchlist etc. - as I fully expect that it'll be vandalised by the people involved with the OITC. -- ChrisO 16:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's on my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it. --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Aucaman arbcom

Thanks for the notification. I am not completley happy with the results, is there any way to appeal? -- - K a s h 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please state your grounds for appeal to me or any other arbitrator or clerk. The arbitrators will consider whether the remedies or findings of fact are unreasonable. You may also appeal directly to User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl Meier

I've just read the comment you wrote on Karl Meiers talk page. Maybe this diff provides additional insight, who he really is. Raphael1 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that edit at the time and persuaded him to remove it. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Alt Acct Master

It's already been decided by many in the undeletion debate and by a TfD discussion that these by no stretch of the imagination fall under CSD#T1. And have you read the rewording of the userbox: "This user has multiple Misplaced Pages accounts." That is perfectly acceptable under WP:SOCK. Restore the template immediately, as your unilateral action here is quite unacceptable for an admin and is a highly counterproductive effort to make a point. Have you read WP:SOCK? These userboxes are policy. How on earth could they be "divisive and inflammatory"? I might also add that I find your behavior on the undeletion debates--your early closures of discussions, your closing highly controversial debates in which you have participated, and your uncivil and rude remarks--extremely immature and inappropriate. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, matters that are this controversial likely should be TfDed rather than speedied, per WP:CSD and just because it would save you a lot of headaches. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To say that any userbox, particularly one like this, is "policy" is simply preposterous. Of course they're not. See my response to David Levy on this. In short, the userboxes misrepresent policy quite comprehensively by giving the impression of official support for alternative accounts. --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Multiple accounts have legitimate uses" (WP:SOCK). There is official support for alternative accounts, when they are used legitimately like mine are. I return to my original opinion that you wish to see the policy change to reflect your belief that there is no legitimate use for alternate accounts, although there is--this is not the way to go about making that change. There's nothing "preposterous" about this userbox; on the contrary, having a method, such as this userbox, to alert others that I do use legitimate alternate accounts, is absolutely vital. In any case, there is absolutely no way on Earth that this userbox falls under WP:CSD#T1. Nominate it for TfD if you disagree with it; don't abuse your administrative priveledges, go against the policies set forth by the community, and ignore the previous TfD and the current discussion to get rid of it. That's called WP:POINT (you might want to try clicking the link and reading the policy, so you're familiar with why your actions are counterproductive and destructive). AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I shall warn you once. Cease your personal attacks or you will risk being blocked. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. My intention was not to attack you; I'm simply quite flustered and dismayed by your actions, and despite your attacks on me (such as "You've got to be joking, bonny lad"), it was entirely off-color to imply that you are unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's policies. Nonetheless, I would like to have a rational discussion to reach some agreement on this userbox, and I would like to ask you once again to undelete it and seek consensus to delete it before doing so. Frankly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this userbox; rather, I feel it necessary to the community, but we seem to have different interpretations of WP:SOCK. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

AmiDaniel is quite correct in stating that these tags are actually recommended at Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry. You broke a transclusion when you deleted the templates.

You claim that I've misinterpreted the policy. With all due respect, I'm still waiting for you to cite the passage(s) in which it's indicated that all uses of multiple accounts are prohibited. As I mentioned, I only see the exact opposite. —David Levy 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting a response to the arguments posed by myself and David Levy. I'd also like to add that I just did a quick tally of the undeletion debate: of 36 votes, 16 (44%) voted to keep them deleted, whilst 20 (56%) voted to undelete / restore / redirect / rewrite. I hate tallying votes, but I just wanted to illustrate the point that, regardless of whether you believe the template is divisive and inflammatory, the community has of yet reached no consensus (meaning it defaults to undelete), and actually more support undeleting the templates than keeping them. Isn't it better in these situations to side with the will of the community, rather than your personal beliefs? I feel that if the debate has currently gained more support to undelete the templates than to keep them deleted, it seems rather clear that WP:CSD#T1 was not applicable here. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I voted to keep the original templates deleted, because I believed (and continue to believe) that they were divisive and inflammatory. The new wording, however, is not even borderline. This deletion obviously was out-of-process (based upon an entirely false rationale), and Tony has stated on many occasions that such an action may be unilaterally reversed by any administrator (and I agree). I don't intend to wheel war, however, so I'm posting here as a courtesy. It would be nice if Tony could return the favor by at least responding. —David Levy 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point in responding to someone who keeps falsely claiming that I have deleted something either out of process or against policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony I know it is difficult to keep up with policy these days but WP:SOCK still allowes for alt accounts (although for some reason you have to call them alt accounts rather than sockpupets). Since you appear not to want to discuss the issue I have gone ahead and undeleted the templates.Geni 18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman - Topical ban

Could you tell me how this is going to work? I have these specific questions:

1. How am I supposed to know which articles I can edit? Some articles under question: Kurds, Kurdistan, Middle East, Najis, Geber, al-Khwarizmi.
2. Those articles I cannot edit, can I still edit the talk page and participate in any (possible) mediation?

You can answer these questions directly or refer me to some literature/examples that illustrate how these bans work. Thanks, Aucaman 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether an article is related to Iran or Persians is to be decided by administrators, who have instructions that "relatedness is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming." Of the articles you list above, I'd say you can probably only edit Middle East without breaching the ban, and then only if you avoid the subject of Iran and Persians.

You can still use the talk pages, participate in mediation, etc. -Tony Sidaway 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well this is not making a whole lot of sense. You're basically telling me I'm not supposed to be editing any articles. Is this going to be permanent or is it temporary? If it's permanent, then I'd much rather face a much harsher punishment (as if it could get any harsher) for some finite time. Something like Xebat's one-year block would do for me. But I don't like being told which articles I can or cannot edit - especially when it's going to be permanent. Any ideas? Aucaman 03:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are over one million articles on Misplaced Pages, and probably only a few hundred of them are related to Persians or Iran. So you are allowed to edit any of about a million articles. The ban is permanent but if you show good behavior it may be possible to apply to have the ban lifted. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

You recently deleted one of my templates for a user box, and I was wondering for the reason for doing so. I just started to learn how to make them, so I guess I don't know the exact process of establishing them. Do I just leave it on my page and not have a page to link it to? If this page is deleted then do I have to remove the box from the Misplaced Pages:Userboxes page in the movies section? --Nehrams2020 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that you already figured out that you can place the code directly onto your userpage. --Tony Sidaway 17:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

StrangerInParadise motion

This motion already has more than enough votes to pass for the past week or two, yet has been "sitting there" without anyone formally implementing it. Is it now time to formally implement it? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.7.84 (talk • contribs) 20:32 UTC, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the arbitrators will close that motion. I obviously can't because it's obvious what I think of StrangerInParadise's behavior. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

user talk spam

If you're concerned about spam, then come over here and have your say. Cheers, NoSeptember 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruption

Hi Tony. I saw your comment on Metb82's talk page. I was wondering, can he just ask an admin to ban me from a page, without them actually checking to see if it is actually disruption? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, don't worry. You could only be banned by an administrator "in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause." An administrator who took Metb82's word for it wouldn't be exercising much judgement! If you are ever unreasonably banned, you can ask for the ban to be reviewed. The probation does mean that you need to be a little more careful than you used to be, but it shouldn't be a problem if you avoid any editing that might appear disruptive to a reasonable person. --Tony Sidaway 01:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

It is not an edit war if I am removing personal attacks without violating 3RR. I have already told the user I disagree with that if they continue I will simply notify the personal attack intervention board. In addition, please do not remove my comments to the user. Paul Cyr 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not my intention to do so. I was merely restoring a comment of my own that was deleted by another editor. Perhaps you can caution that editor not to meddle with the comments of others. -- Gnetwerker 03:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Both of you need to relax a little. I warn you both not to edit war, and in particular I ask Paul Cyr not to mess with the statements of other editors on WP:RFAR. Please do complain to me if you think that inappropriate language of any kind is being used on that page. I can't promise I'll agree with every complaint but I will give you a fair hearing and try to be even-handed. --Tony Sidaway 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:RPA I am not forbidden to remove any personal attack on any page Tony. I understand your attempt to keep order and the fact that WP:RPA is not an official policy which is why I have not continued to remove to attacks but instead I have placed a notice on the Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Paul Cyr 03:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Zeq

Hi Tony - I'm not sure if banning Zeq was the best thing to do. While he may be hard to reason with, I'm not sure that his intentions were malicious. Maybe you could reconsider or at least give him/her a chance to iron the dispute out over another day or two. Thanks. Ramallite 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept your ban

Nakba day needs a mediator, Ian has delibertly caused an edit war in order to try and ban me from this article.

Look at my last edit and talk page. I tried to restore sanity to this article and avoid making it another vbattle article about the events in 1948.

I expect that you will remove the ban and help madiate the subject. Zeq 04:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that according to policy: "Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged" this apply to Ian specifically as he tried to take advantage of the fact I am on probation and inserted unrelated information (which is already in the article palestinian exodus) into Nakba day so that i will remove it. Any attempts to reason with him failed.

This editor has been following me around in the last 2 weeks. Every edit (or almost any) I made, ant where in any article got a revert or change from him (most often a revert). This is a simple issue that can be prooved. I have also asked him several times to stop stalking me. I expect that you will not take a side in this harrasment and help resolve the content dispute in Nakba day reminding ian on harrasment policy as well on his own being cautioned against creating an edit war. Zeq 04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not lifting the ban, but I'm submitting it for review . --Tony Sidaway 04:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Good morning, mister, please mind Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway#Remedies as well. Thanks. --Constanz - Talk 06:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they say what you think they say. --Tony Sidaway 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Coolcat at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Kurdish_inhabited_region

While I agree, the best way for Coolcat to stay out of trouble is to edit other articles, I think he made a valid point when he nominated this particular category for deletion. And now people are voting keep based on his involvement rather than the merits or demerits of the category itself (bad, bad!). The thing is the category is vague. Should London be considered a Kurdish inhabited region? And what kind of precedent will it set? American inhabited region, German inhabited region, French inhabited region?

I think Coolcat was right to nominate such a vague category and I don't think banning him for it is the right thing to do. If someone else had nominated it, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. Please reconsider the week-long ban you suggested (and leave a note on my talk page if you respond). - Mgm| 10:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's true that someone else wouldn't have been blocked, but most people haven't been through ArbCom about kurd edits. I think we had three people at AN/I averring that the nomination was disruptive. If you think the block was unnecessary, then discuss it with the users involved. I don't feel qualified to judge whether Coolcat's nomination was disruptive, rather I'm only willing to interpret what the users involved feel, so try to convince them. Not me. I think this discussion would be better suited to WP:AN/I than Tony's talk page. -lethe 10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Leyasu on Children of Bodom

Hi Tony, I thought I should contact you directly on this rather than using WP:AE because I'd like an opinion on this specifically from you since you're familiar with the Leyasu (talk · contribs) case. He's still claiming that what the anon editor(s) on Children of Bodom are doing is vandalism since they're removing the sources he put on the page. He also violated 1RR today on the page . I'm not sure if that's accidental or not, but what sort of enforcement would you recommend for that? The genre description he's been providing looks like it's a well-sourced, valid edit; but at the same time he's revert warring with the anons (who are being incivil back to him; I recently warned one of them with Template:Edit summary personal), and it doesn't look like the talk page is seeing much activity. I requested protection for that page recently but was denied it. (I didn't protect it myself in case there were any conflicts of interest.)

Also, just a general question about CheckUser. I know that very few people here are allowed CheckUser rights, but is it ok for other editors to look up anons using Whois and similar sites? I'd like to get a general idea of how many real editors there are behind the pile of anons that are reverting Leyasu (Leyasu is asserting that all of them are a "sock farm"), but CheckUser requests take a while to be processed. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 14:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages clerks